Skip to main content
Glama
futureweb

Futureweb Intervals MCP

by futureweb

get_activity_intervals

Read-only

Retrieve per-interval metrics for an Intervals.icu activity—power, HR, cadence, speed, intensity, custom fields—plus optional stream stats or planned-step matches for laps/efforts.

Instructions

Use for per-interval numbers of one activity (laps or detected efforts): power, HR, cadence, speed, intensity, custom interval fields and groups.

Cadence follows the sport: steps per minute on foot (2 x the stored per-leg value), rpm otherwise. stream_types adds start/end/min/max/mean/delta of any stream per interval from the recorded samples, e.g. stamina drop or a second power meter (list_activity_streams shows what exists). include_planned_types shows the planned step matched to each interval and the time beyond the plan; the Intervals.icu type is kept. Without intervals use analyze_climbs. Read-only; 2 API calls, +1 for streams, +1 for a paired event. Methods: intervals://methods/activity-data, intervals://methods/execution (get_guide).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activity_idYesActivity id, e.g. i123456789
detail_levelNocompact = one line per interval; standard = full block per interval; full adds every custom stream when stream_types is emptystandard
stream_typesNoComma-separated streams to evaluate per interval, e.g. Stamina,secondary_power; custom = custom streams + secondary_power; all = every stream
output_formatNotext, or json (raw intervals and groups with custom fields, stream statistics, planned step)text
planned_workout_docNoWorkout document {"steps": [...]} to match against; implies include_planned_types
include_custom_fieldsNoList the athlete's custom interval fields per interval
include_planned_typesNoShow the planned step matched to each interval (paired event or planned_workout_doc)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description goes well beyond them with a real cost model ('2 API calls, +1 for streams, +1 for a paired event'), cadence conventions that depend on sport, and what include_planned_types actually surfaces (the matched planned step and time beyond plan). This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, with supporting semantics and routing packed into two dense paragraphs; nearly every sentence carries information. The trailing methods-URI pointer and some clause packing make it slightly heavier than ideal, but nothing is clearly wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers cost, cadence semantics, stream evaluation, planned-step matching, and the json alternative's contents. Only fine-grained return-shape detail is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the schema handles enums and defaults.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: stream_types values are illustrated ('Stamina,secondary_power', the custom/all shorthands) and its per-interval output (start/end/min/max/mean/delta), and it explains that planned_workout_doc implies include_planned_types. Useful supplement rather than mere repetition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: 'per-interval numbers of one activity (laps or detected efforts)' followed by the exact metrics returned. It also explicitly carves itself away from siblings, routing the no-intervals case to analyze_climbs and cross-referencing list_activity_streams for available streams.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear when-to-use ('use for per-interval numbers') plus one explicit alternative condition ('Without intervals use analyze_climbs') and points to supplementary methods docs via get_guide. It does not address the nearer siblings like find_similar_intervals or compare_workouts, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.